Editorial: Vote no on Proposition 112 because it’s a ban on oil and gas

Share this:

We wouldn’t want heavy industrial activities in our backyards and we think Colorado oil and gas operators need to do a better job of putting a buffer between their wells and residential areas.

However, that is not what Proposition 112 is about.

The proposition, put on the ballot by more than 120,000 concerned Coloradans who signed petitions, is written in such a way as to effectively ban oil and gas operations in a state with rich reserves waiting to be developed.

If voters were truly being asked to impose reasonable setbacks from houses, schools, and playgrounds, opposing 112 would have been a much more difficult decision for this editorial board. And voters probably wouldn’t be seeing opposition from candidates and politicians who have historically been advocates for more local control over oil and gas operations, like gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis.

But Proposition 112 requires that oil and gas operations be 2,500 feet from “occupied structures, water sources and areas designated as vulnerable.”

Public open spaces, irrigation canals, perennial or intermittent streams are defined as “vulnerable areas” in the ballot language, meaning that a dry creek bed that flows only during a heavy rain would suddenly have a 450 acre no-drill zone around it.

The effect of that would be a ban on oil and gas exploration of Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin. That’s the area in northeast Colorado where most of the state’s drilling activity is occurring.

With such a ban would come an exodus of oil and gas companies from the state, the high-paying jobs they create directly and indirectly, and the taxes they pay to state and local governments.

Even if lawmakers were to walk the language of the statute back in 2019, it’s a risk. And we’re simply not willing to risk losing such a big part of Colorado’s economy.

Proponents of Proposition 112 counter that we shouldn’t be willing to trade the health of our children, our safety or our environment for economic gains.

We agree.

But we haven’t seen evidence that oil and gas activity is the kind of unmitigated threat to health and safety that would merit a ban.

Last year the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment set out to answer that very question: “Do substances emitted into the air from oil and gas operations result in exposures to Coloradans living near oil and gas operations at levels that may be harmful to their health?”

The study found that within 500 feet of some wells there were increased air concentrations of benzene, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Those concentrations increased cancer risks to just below the “elevated” designation adopted by the EPA. Those risks for long-term exposure were still within the “acceptable risk range” however, and CDPHE said there was no immediate need for a public health response, but urged further study.

All of Colorado was shaken by the explosion in Firestone that destroyed a family home and killed two men. That fluke explosion was caused by an abandoned gas line from a well pad, and following the tragedy, the state has tightened down flow line regulations. Setbacks wouldn’t have prevented the accident.

Likely neither the CDPHE study or the Firestone response are completely reassuring to Coloradans living roughly 500 feet from wells (that is the current setback requirement but some homes are closer to older wells). That’s why Colorado lawmakers should look again at whether new oil and gas operations should be required to be further than 500 feet from occupied buildings, schools, and playgrounds. And CDPHE should make further study a top priority.

But without hesitation, we can say that Proposition 112 is not the best way to address those reasonable concerns. It is an overreaction and we hope Coloradans reject it.